Egyptian Episcopal Leader Calls for Restrictions on Speech

Jackie, I agree with your first sentence.  I don’t see any way this could go wrong.

The concept of free speech is foreign in the southern hemisphere. I think the idea is reflective of the culture Anis lives in rather than intentionally harmful (although I disagree with the idea). There is no way the US can or will accede to any treaty that is so blatantly against US ideals. I predict this will disappear after a handful of Muslim countries clamor that the Security Council pick it up and it doesn’t get any attention - although I am sure that 40 or 50 countries will riot and pillage embassies because of it.

Nutcracker, limits on free speech regarding religion have been part of American foreign policy since 2009. Check out this link-  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/11/Obama-Backed-UN-Free-Speech-Restrictions—With-Egypt—in-2009.
It’s time for America to wake up- our current leadership’s ideals aren’t entirely in line with the Bill of Rights.

#3 - and do you think the US Senate would ratify the restrictions? No matter how liberal they may tilt, I do not. It would be career ending.

When it comes to religion, one person’s free speech is another person’s insult.

... and I’m waiting for the TEC and PC(USA) news releases supporting the Bishop’s statement.

I don’t believe for one second that the attacks on embassies in the Middle East had one thing to do with some stupid movie.  They included mortar and rocket-powered grenade launchers, for one thing.  And they were well-coordinated for another.  And they happened on 9/11.

Frankly, it was just another excuse for Muslims to kill Christians.  Sorry, but that’s the bottom line. 

And for our own government to try to make it sound like it is anything else is shameful and cowardly.  At least Romney acted Presidential in his comments…unlike our current President and his administration.

Free speech is an interesting concept.  Of course here in the states we do not enjoy unfettered free speech.  We don’t.  There are already limits on it.  There are laws against slander for example.  It is also against the law in most places to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater.  Other people are protected from what I might say about them or scream aloud.  If individuals enjoy such rights that impose upon my free speech, why not groups of people?

Every society, democratic or otherwise, struggles with this question.  Should it be legal for a school teacher to teach that the Holocaust never happened and is a Jewish conspiracy? Does Free Speech guarantee them this right?  Even in our society we struggle with the limits of free speech.

I agree with The Nutcracker #2.  The bishop is a good, indeed, saintly, man.  He is also an Egyptian.  Egypt had never in its entire existence, spanning 5,000 years, had a free society controlled by the principles and practices we have in the U.S.  Only since the Nasser revolution has it had an Egyptian ruler, Nasser being the first since several centuries before Christ.  Central government control is bred into the Egyptian mind.

Ed:  True, there are limits to free speech.  Those limits are based on a variety of factors - e.g. you can’t intentionally spread lies that ruin someone’s reputations; you can’t use a position of authority over kids to push false propaganda (unless of course the state Democratic Party is in government and orders or encourages you to); and you can’t intentionally start a riot.

But in the US, we don’t prohibit speech that criticizes (no matter how harshly or distastefully) political positions or religions.  This kind of speech is viewed as the central core of what free speech means.  If you limit speech that a given religion finds offensive, then you have pretty much shut down freedom of speech.  Freedom to say what you want about politics or religion is absolutely central to what freedom of speech means in this country.

We aren’t talking here about areas that would be considered “grey areas” of free speech (like the example you mention) - rather the limits of speech that are being considered here strike at the very core.

And there is another problem - the examples you raise can all be dealt with by relatively objective tests (e.g. the legal test for slander).  But the censorship being called for against speech that might offend religious sensibilities has no objective test - other than the question “does this speech subjectively offend a religious person?”  But such a test would bring up a myriad of further questions.  What religions get to be so offended so that government will censor speech?  Only “mainstream” religions or fringe religions also?  Would the limits be pro-active or re-active?  Who would decide?  What if that decider appeared biased?

When you realize all the questions that would need to be addressed in order to implement these supposed bans on anti-religious speech, you realize what a can of worms you are opening and why any such suggestion is BAD, BAD, BAD!!!

Hi Jamesw,

I am not a lawyer and do not aspire to be one.  I’m not suggesting we eliminate speech that criticizes a religion or political party in the USA.  My simple point is that here in the USA we actually limit Free Speech already in a way that we find culturally appropriate.  Other countries limit Free Speech differently.  Sometimes these differences are very far apart and others are more incremental. 

If its illegal for me to incite a riot in the USA through the exercise of free speech, should it be legal for me to knowingly incite a riot in a foreign country and place our Diplomats and Troops in harms way?  Clearly the framers of the first amendment did not anticipate YouTube.  I don’t have the answer to the question, but I don’t think the question is so easily answered.

Ed:

First, let’s get this one dealt with.

I am not a lawyer and do not aspire to be one.

The world would certainly be much better off if more people could simply voice this simple sentence! 

Second, on to the serious stuff…
It is not necessarily illegal for you to incite a riot in the USA - at least not in the way you are defining it for the Middle East.  You are a priest in the ACNA.  We know that the Presiding Bishop of TEC has an abiding hatred of persons in the ACNA and perceives them to be a serious threat to her denomination’s continued livelihood.  Suppose that the PB is able to whip up a crowd at General Convention showing them your church’s website and its “about us” section explaining the ACNA (assuming you have such) and they march down to the nearest ACNA church building and burn it down.  They demand that they are offended by the ACNA advertising because they interpret that as an attack on TEC.  So - did YOU incite a riot illegally?  What if you knew, or ought to have known that the PB would freak out over your ACNA advertising?

Now, I personally doubt that the amateurish and ridiculous little film actually led to all of this protest.  I doubt that more than 1% of the protesters have seen it.  Blaming this silly film strikes me as a good definition for the word “pretext”.  I haven’t seen the film myself, but from what I have heard it is silly and buffoonish and not at all anything I would want to have the least amount of association with.  Same goes for the many films, pieces of “art” and other things that mock Jesus Christ or Christianity.  Publishing stuff that mocks Mohammed, Islam, Jesus, the Pope or Christianity may be stupid, petty and mean spirited but you simply cannot blame the producer of such junk with “inciting riots.”  Otherwise, you arrive at the unthinkable and really ridiculous proposition that groups can censor speech by reacting in the most violent and deadly manner possible.

Don’t like what the Democrats had to say in Charlotte?  Go on a riot, burn down a bunch of buildings, lynch some local Democrats, and from now on, government will silence the Democrats for “inciting a riot.”  Don’t like the Republicans?  Well, do the same.  Whoever causes the most mayhem and death will have the best argument to silence their opponents.

I don’t dispute that we in the USA limit free speech differently than in most other cultures.  I think that that is one of the critical issues here.  What the President and the State Department need to say is this:  “This is America.  In America we have something called freedom of speech.  This means that citizens can say things that others are mightily offended by.  This doesn’t mean that the government supports such statements or that Americans agree with those statements.  Over the years Christianity, Mormonism, and many other religions have been mocked many times.  And while it is legitimate for the aggrieved group to protest and criticize offensive statements, it is not the job of the American government to silence such speech.  We are sorry you feel aggrieved and offended, but we will not compromise our tradition of permitting free speech in our nation.  We fully support your right to peacefully protest against speech that you consider to be offensive to your religion.  Many Americans, including myself, join you in this protest.  But if you attack our embassies, our troops or our citizens, you are then attacking the whole United States and such attacks will not be tolerated.”

Kowtowing to bullies does not placate them, it only makes them demand more.

So when the head Imams call Christians and Jews monkeys and pigs, will he be thrown in jail?  I’m thinking of snowballs and hell. 

This will ONLY result in the sort of one-way “tolerance” we have come to expect from the GLBTQXYZ crowd and Muslims.

jamesw [12] wrote:

Suppose that the PB is able to whip up a crowd at General Convention showing them your church’s website and its “about us” section explaining the ACNA (assuming you have such) and they march down to the nearest ACNA church building and burn it down.

In that case, it would be the PB who is guilty of inciting the riot.

Roland - my point exactly.  I don’t believe that it is the strange little man who created an obscure, amateurish video that “incited the riots” of the Middle East.  Instead, I believe that it was extremists in the Middle East that used this video as a pretext to whipping up the crowds to riot.  This is why the argument that things can be solved with more censorship makes no sense.

“Anis said such a declaration will not run counter to freedom of speech, but it prevents using this right to insult religious sanctities.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....”

I know that this issue speaks to a matter of constitutional principle which is foreign to non-westerners, but there is no difference between preventing the use of a right and abridging it.  Whenever a free people has been persuaded to give up their freedoms (always for the best of reasons, of course) it has never turned out well.

I think we, especially in the US,  have to be careful about berating even allies like Mouneer-Anis for having attitudes with which we disagree.  While we understand freedom of speech one way, that way is not universally held. It would be more interesting to know more about what kind of freedom of speech already exists (if it does) in Egypt. Berating an ally is never a good idea. Instead pray for Mouneer-Anis and his diocese! They are fight a war for survival!

*fighting a war for survival!* blast my lousy typing skills.

“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Mark 3:28-30 ESV)

Jesus is not intimidated by blasphemies.  He doesn’t need men to impose civil law against it. 

In fact, the only real, fatal blasphemy is to deny his divinity. 

For Christians, “I think Jesus is the greatest moral voice ever, a truly holy man, but not God” is the greatest blasphemy.  Will the UN crack down on that convention of Western conversation, raiding every coffee house where it might be uttered by the cool and cultured?  Close universites when professors utter it?

How will religious groups hold debates?  When does an argument become blasphemy?  And how about our “new atheists” and their books?  Will they be banned?

We need to be assertive about free speech.  Practically, it allows very different groups to live together without violence.  Spiritually, it is the way of Jesus, who did not retaliate when cursed and never employed coercion as his means to convert others or even to keep his own followers in line.

SC blue cat lady:  I don’t think that anyone is berating Abp. Mouneer.  One can still have great love and respect for an ally while disagreeing with them on specific issues.  I would echo Jackie’s comment that appears at the very top:
“I like and respect Bishop Mouneer Anis and consider him a godly man but he is 100% wrong in this instance.”

I understand what Mouneer is trying to do, but I think he is wrong.  Any “anti-blasphemy” law will not relieve any pressure on the Christians in the Middle-East.  The Islamists will not stop attacking Christians and Jews, and such a law would only apply internationally to speech that Muslims don’t like.  The Islamists wouldn’t see it as restricting them at all, and if Christians sought to use that rule they would be told to shut up.  The Islamists would then simply up the ante to the next thing they wanted, confident that the world backed down once, and would do so again.

SC blu cat lady, free speech in Egypt was very limited even in the Mubarak era.  These days, it’s worse.  Very naturally, no film of this type could possibly be made in Egypt.  It is instructive to note that the fourteen-minute trailer, with Arabic dubbing, was first run in Egypt the weekend before the Embassy assault by an Islamist media provocateur.  One might even imagine that he may have added the Arabic himself.  This is a Salafi-manufactured crisis.  The good Bishop (and he is very, very good as a Christian and as a bishop) is between a rock and a hard place.  Prayer for him and for his flock is a right response.